On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Greg Hendershott greghendersh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there a similarly simple/standard way to disable contracts?
I'd love a #lang like that. Never mind Tony Hoare's metaphor about sailing.
For now, I'm attaching a small patch that'll disable contracts (as far
This looks really exciting!
Imagining using this reminds me of something.
Typed Racket has a simple/standard way to disable type-checking (while
retaining the type declarations for documentation value as well as
potential re-enabling): #lang typed/racket/no-check and #lang
On 1/15/15 7:42 PM, Benjamin Greenman wrote:
I tried writing a small program, but got stuck pretty early on. When I
try verifying the divides? function below, the tool times out. What's
happening?
(module div racket
(provide (contract-out [divides? (- positive? positive? boolean?)]))
On 1/15/15 2:42 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
On 1/15/15, 2:13 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2015-01-14 19:11:59 -0500, David Van Horn wrote:
If you have questions, comments, bugs, or any other feedback, let
us know, or just file bug reports on the GitHub source code.
Nice tool! I like the web
On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:13 AM, David Van Horn dvanh...@cs.umd.edu wrote:
On 1/15/15, 11:04 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Well that got me all excited. So I tried to get the sample module
to pass the verification step -- until I realized how restricted
the grammar is!
(module f racket
On 1/15/15, 11:27 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Argh, I wanted the other way (negative). I always get the
directions confused. Sorry.
Right -- using (and/c real? (/c 0)) will also make this verify.
Thanks for trying it out!
David
On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:26 AM, David Van Horn
FWIW, (/c 0) already implies real?.
Robby
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:30 AM, David Van Horn dvanh...@cs.umd.edu wrote:
On 1/15/15, 11:27 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Argh, I wanted the other way (negative). I always get the
directions confused. Sorry.
Right -- using (and/c real? (/c 0))
On 1/15/15, 11:04 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Well that got me all excited. So I tried to get the sample module
to pass the verification step -- until I realized how restricted
the grammar is!
(module f racket (provide (contract-out [f (real? . - .
integer?)])) (define (f n) (/ 1 (- 100
On 1/15/15, 11:17 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:13 AM, David Van Horn dvanh...@cs.umd.edu
wrote:
On 1/15/15, 11:04 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
Well that got me all excited. So I tried to get the sample
module to pass the verification step -- until I realized
On 2015-01-15 14:13:02 -0500, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
Contract violation: 'fact' violates '='.
Value
0.105
violates predicate
real?
An example module that breaks it:
(module user racket (require (submod .. fact)) (factorial 0.105))
(Verification takes 0.05s)
Hmm,
I think this is saying that the result is going to be negative. (But
it won't, since it doesn't terminate.)
Robby
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Asumu Takikawa as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On 2015-01-14 19:11:59 -0500, David Van Horn wrote:
If you have questions, comments, bugs, or any other
On 2015-01-14 19:11:59 -0500, David Van Horn wrote:
If you have questions, comments, bugs, or any other feedback, let us
know, or just file bug reports on the GitHub source code.
Nice tool! I like the web interface too.
I was confused by this interaction though. Clicking verify on this:
Can you randomly make up programs from your grammar, get example
errors from the tool, and then run those programs to see if you find
bugs in the analysis like that one?
That said, I don't see how the bug in =/c is coming in here. Can you
explain more?
Robby
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:42 PM,
On 1/15/15, 2:13 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
On 2015-01-14 19:11:59 -0500, David Van Horn wrote:
If you have questions, comments, bugs, or any other feedback, let
us know, or just file bug reports on the GitHub source code.
Nice tool! I like the web interface too.
I was confused by this
On 1/15/15, 2:48 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Can you randomly make up programs from your grammar, get example
errors from the tool, and then run those programs to see if you
find bugs in the analysis like that one?
Yes, we're planning to do this.
That said, I don't see how the bug in =/c is
I tried writing a small program, but got stuck pretty early on. When I try
verifying the divides? function below, the tool times out. What's
happening?
(module div racket
(provide (contract-out [divides? (- positive? positive? boolean?)]))
(define (positive? x)
(and (integer? x) (= 0
16 matches
Mail list logo
